somehow I only recently learned that LLMs need the whole conversation fed back to them on each prompt so their i/o cost scales as O(n^2), something that would be considered completely unacceptable in almost any other production network-accessible software
they ran into this and then didn't figure out a way to externalise the state in some fixed-size form so the LLM can resume from there. you just have to restart the computer and redo everything
in any other program this would be considered a DoS vector and have CVEs issued
gosh I wonder why their costs are completely unmanageable
@jcoglan I think part of the reason is that injecting randomness into each step is crucial to the way they are marketed and to many of their use-cases. Without it you'd get predictable outputs which would destroy the illusion of a "natural" conversation with the user.
https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference/
@buherator @jcoglan having spent a lot of time looking at hardware faults of all sorts - many extremely subtle - I wouldn't be surprised if there's even more factors involved given the scale of the compuation
@jcoglan this goes hand in hand with the obsession of getting better results by running these things in a loop (aka "agentic" stuff). You're exploring a statistical space through sheer brute force and randomness in the hope that you'll encounter something resembling the right answer
@gabrielesvelto @jcoglan So instead of vibe coding it should be called brute-force coding. Like guessing passwords.